Compilation problem with bogofilter-0.10.1.3 - tests still fail.

[Nick Simicich]

At 03:53 AM 2003-01-31 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:

>Matthias Andree <matthias.andree at gmx.de> writes:
>
> > What OS and version is this?

Redhat 5.0, gcc version 2.7.2.3.  Ancient. But most stuff will compile and 
work. This is my P-90 that I use for mail. And DNS (I have compiled and 
installed a current version of bind 9).

> > Do you have a stdint.h header?

[root at scifi bogofilter-0.10.1.3.cvs]# locate stdint.h
[root at scifi bogofilter-0.10.1.3.cvs]# find /usr/include -follow  -name stdint.h
[root at scifi bogofilter-0.10.1.3.cvs]#

No.

> > Does your system define u_int32_t in some header?

Yes, I believe it is defined in db.h and in <sys/types.h>:

[root at scifi bogofilter-0.10.1.3.cvs]# find /usr/include -follow  -type f 
-name '*.h' | xargs grep 'typedef.*u_int32_t[  ]*;'
/usr/include/db.h:typedef unsigned int   u_int32_t;
/usr/include/sys/types.h:typedef   unsigned int u_int32_t;
[root at scifi bogofilter-0.10.1.3.cvs]#

>Nevermind, please try the current CVS or this snapshot tarball:
>
>bogofilter-0.10.1.3-20030131T0250Z.cvs.tar.gz
>
>find it at:
>
>http://mandree.home.pages.de/bogofilter/

By the way, even with the snapshot tarball and the patch for the typedef:

FAIL: t.lexer.mbx
FAIL: t.robx
SKIP: t.valgrind
PASS: t.split
PASS: t.systest
PASS: t.grftest

I know that these are new tests:  I'd like for someone to express an 
opinion on the risk of upgrading.  Assuming these tests fail with 0.10.1.3, 
and did not exist with 0.9.1.2, are they likely to indicate new 
problems?  Should I risk upgrading?

--
SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel.
spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally 
to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it 
can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc.  But if it is not all three of 
Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term 
plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and 
spammers thrive on  confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like 
theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer?
Nick Simicich - njs at scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html
Stop by and light up the world!